Performa
Sep 25, 12:51 PM
Because they didn't announce MacBook Pro's with Core 2 Duo! Why else?
I guess if they announced in the news that a cure had been found for cancer, these people would say, "So! Where is my new MacBook Pro?"
You "One-Way, ______er ________ers."
I guess if they announced in the news that a cure had been found for cancer, these people would say, "So! Where is my new MacBook Pro?"
You "One-Way, ______er ________ers."
Evangelion
Aug 8, 04:03 AM
The Cinema Displays aren't for general consumers like most of you posting in this thread. They're for professionals who need even backlighting, excellent color accuracy, and a large viewing angle. That's why Apple charges a premium for them. If you don't care about these things get a Dell.
What makes you think that you can't get those features in a Dell? Do you have any facts?
What makes you think that you can't get those features in a Dell? Do you have any facts?
Cleverboy
Jan 14, 08:23 PM
Hey bad news is better than no news. I'd bet Gizmodo will get a few more hits out of this and maybe ces will attract some more people to see what will happen next year. It may be in the end one of the better things to have happened to this event. (Just a different way of looking at it)Wow. No. This (or anything like it) isn't something to "look forward" to next year. This was just STUPID. Yes, Gizmodo got extra traffic out of it... its what they do. I thought Leo Leporte was unreasonable for his dislike of Gizmodo, but they are now OFF my Google homepage and out of my bookmarks, and have earned a measure of disrepect for many of their readers. If they have anything more to say, I will likely never hear of it. Hopefully Engadget and other websites can make sure I get the news I would have heard from Gizmodo. I'll miss Jesus' artwork, but oh well. Plenty of other talented people out there.
~ CB
~ CB
David G.
Jan 11, 07:19 PM
Ban. Them. Now.
drlunanerd
Nov 27, 04:54 AM
They are doing a similar event in the UK on Friday 1st December - a 'one day only special sales event'
It says it's a "shopping event" (http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/shopping/?CDM-EU-0994) though, not a sale.
It says it's a "shopping event" (http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/shopping/?CDM-EU-0994) though, not a sale.
Surely
Apr 8, 01:12 PM
You guys don't get it do you, the promotion is not for the iPad, they are going to use some stock of the iPad to promote some other stuff and make money. The iPad is the draw in this case, not the promotion in and of itself.
Yeah, that makes a little more sense. But what....iPad2 accessories?
I still have a hard time buying their reason.
Yeah, that makes a little more sense. But what....iPad2 accessories?
I still have a hard time buying their reason.
blanding
Dec 26, 07:33 AM
oh, i already received it ,i like it very much.
twoodcc
Sep 20, 08:13 AM
we looked into it, our a/cs chew 30w each WHEN THEY ARE TURNED OFF! its insane. we now turn them off at the power box.
yeah well the guy added some freon to it, so hopefully it will work better now. he also put some dye in there to check for leaks
yeah well the guy added some freon to it, so hopefully it will work better now. he also put some dye in there to check for leaks
susiequest
Nov 24, 01:24 AM
I was in the Best Buy in West Los Angeles and they have the previous models Macbooks and Macbooks pros. I asked if they were sending them back to Apple and they said they were blowing out all the discontinued Macs at 5 am Black Friday. The manager there said I could buy the entry model Macbook for $899.99! Its the first generation with Intel core duo but so what. They also had the Macbook pros too. This is the info I got that day. He also said they had the most inventory and the other Bestbuys weren't as aggressive in pricing which I believe because I was at another store and they had none of the older macs.
1.83MacbookCD white $899.99
2.0 Macbook Pro $1499.99
2.16 Macbook Pro $1699.99
They had other models too but I could only see so much in those tacky cages.
1.83MacbookCD white $899.99
2.0 Macbook Pro $1499.99
2.16 Macbook Pro $1699.99
They had other models too but I could only see so much in those tacky cages.
Surely
Apr 21, 10:17 PM
So same system but without the down vote button at all?
arn
I think this would be a better way to do it. Perhaps it could be called the "Thank you" or "Helpful" button.
arn
I think this would be a better way to do it. Perhaps it could be called the "Thank you" or "Helpful" button.
Malcster
Sep 12, 04:36 AM
He did it last year. The 5G event was streamed to Europe and you still can't get TV shows. Neither can we but it wasn't streamed here.
ah i think your right, memory is hazy, the 5G release was so long ago now...
ah i think your right, memory is hazy, the 5G release was so long ago now...
MacRumors
Apr 8, 12:38 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/08/best-buy-not-in-trouble-with-apple-holding-ipad-2-stock-for-upcoming-promotion/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/08/133528-bbyhold.jpg
jennifer aniston new haircut
Jennifer Aniston New Haircut:
Jennifer Anistons New Haircut
Jennifer Aniston New Haircut
jennifer aniston new haircut
jennifer aniston new hairstyle
jennifer aniston new haircut
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/08/133528-bbyhold.jpg
stoid
Aug 9, 06:54 PM
Would someone who bought what they assume to be the newer
version of this display with improve brightness and contrast
please post part of your serial number.
Mine: 2A6211XXXXX (Xs represents the rest of my number)
date of manufacture: May 2006
Determined from the decoder at:
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
I'm trying to detemine if the one I just bought is in this new batch.
And if it isn't I want to return it quickly.
I have 15 days to return it and exchange if I don't want this display to the store
where I bought it (not from an Apple store).
Mine is 2A6241XXXXX
manufacture date: June 2006
version of this display with improve brightness and contrast
please post part of your serial number.
Mine: 2A6211XXXXX (Xs represents the rest of my number)
date of manufacture: May 2006
Determined from the decoder at:
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
I'm trying to detemine if the one I just bought is in this new batch.
And if it isn't I want to return it quickly.
I have 15 days to return it and exchange if I don't want this display to the store
where I bought it (not from an Apple store).
Mine is 2A6241XXXXX
manufacture date: June 2006
mcrain
Apr 26, 09:29 AM
It wasn't a skeevy guy, not even remotely.
She was in the right restroom, there is a good option, for her to use the loo appropriate to her gender, female.
I know it wasn't a skeevy guy. What I also know is that transgendered people have to deal with all sorts of problems, including what restroom to use. A transgendered woman going into a women's room should not be treated like a skeevy guy going into a restroom, but it happens. I've seen it happen. I pointed out the comparison to spark a conversation, not to say it's right, but to say the comparison is often made. Either there is a failure of education and tolerance, or some accomodation needst to be made, or maybe security should be better, or something...
Oh, and there are too many people who make unfounded assumptions. This story is proof of that.
Out of curiosity, do you actually know what gender she was? Was she post-op? Pre-op? Does it matter? I think a woman sitting in a stall might freak out by someone peeing upright next to them.
You would think that; however one could argue that black Americans don't repay the goodwill done towards their causes by standing up for other minorities. In fact, you could say that they do the opposite and use other minorities as scape goats for their problems. You could say that but then everyone would just call you a racist.
Yes, they might.
I usually like your posts on here but this one is really coming off as transphobic and frankly makes me really sad to read.
I really did try to avoid making it sound that way, because that was not my intention. I apologize to anyone who was offended by how I worded that post.
She was in the right restroom, there is a good option, for her to use the loo appropriate to her gender, female.
I know it wasn't a skeevy guy. What I also know is that transgendered people have to deal with all sorts of problems, including what restroom to use. A transgendered woman going into a women's room should not be treated like a skeevy guy going into a restroom, but it happens. I've seen it happen. I pointed out the comparison to spark a conversation, not to say it's right, but to say the comparison is often made. Either there is a failure of education and tolerance, or some accomodation needst to be made, or maybe security should be better, or something...
Oh, and there are too many people who make unfounded assumptions. This story is proof of that.
Out of curiosity, do you actually know what gender she was? Was she post-op? Pre-op? Does it matter? I think a woman sitting in a stall might freak out by someone peeing upright next to them.
You would think that; however one could argue that black Americans don't repay the goodwill done towards their causes by standing up for other minorities. In fact, you could say that they do the opposite and use other minorities as scape goats for their problems. You could say that but then everyone would just call you a racist.
Yes, they might.
I usually like your posts on here but this one is really coming off as transphobic and frankly makes me really sad to read.
I really did try to avoid making it sound that way, because that was not my intention. I apologize to anyone who was offended by how I worded that post.
iMikeT
Sep 12, 04:05 AM
All I can say is that five weeks from now we will see iTunes 8.0 along with a "true" iPod Video.
Demosthenes X
Nov 14, 02:34 PM
Been playing Zombie mode all weekend... it's really frustrating without a mic, though, since I can't communicate and everyone seems to be doing their own thing. Need to be able to talk to collaborate and get to the higher rounds, I think.
That said, it's super-addicting. Nothing relieves stress like blasting Zombies. :D
I haven't made it into the Multiplayer yet. The last few times I've tried the servers haven't been responding... I've had an easier time getting on the servers to play Zombies, though...
Single player campaign is pretty typical of COD, imo. It's pretty good... If anything, though, this game is encouraging me to go buy World at War for half the price and just play Zombies. Hah!
That said, it's super-addicting. Nothing relieves stress like blasting Zombies. :D
I haven't made it into the Multiplayer yet. The last few times I've tried the servers haven't been responding... I've had an easier time getting on the servers to play Zombies, though...
Single player campaign is pretty typical of COD, imo. It's pretty good... If anything, though, this game is encouraging me to go buy World at War for half the price and just play Zombies. Hah!
Liquorpuki
Oct 6, 02:31 PM
When I was on Verizon, I could drive from Silicon Valley down to LA and not get dropped once.
Now that I'm on AT&T, on my 40 mile drive home on the 101 from downtown LA to the West Valley, I regularly get dropped 2 to 3 times - usually at the Lankershim and Winnetka exits.
It is what it is
Now that I'm on AT&T, on my 40 mile drive home on the 101 from downtown LA to the West Valley, I regularly get dropped 2 to 3 times - usually at the Lankershim and Winnetka exits.
It is what it is
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 11:13 AM
- The call loss issue is 1/100 or less, worse for the new 4 model than the prior 3GS model.
This is key. If the iPhone 4 isn't dropping calls any more often than the 3GS, then there is no real issue at all. Either almost no one is dropping additional calls because of the antenna, or if the issue is more widespread, it is made up for by antenna performance improvements elsewhere. The net result? Same performance as 3GS which no one complained about.
You can either accept that or accuse AT&T and Apple of faking that 1/100 number, in which case your argument is standing in the tinfoil hat section.
This is key. If the iPhone 4 isn't dropping calls any more often than the 3GS, then there is no real issue at all. Either almost no one is dropping additional calls because of the antenna, or if the issue is more widespread, it is made up for by antenna performance improvements elsewhere. The net result? Same performance as 3GS which no one complained about.
You can either accept that or accuse AT&T and Apple of faking that 1/100 number, in which case your argument is standing in the tinfoil hat section.
dalvin200
Sep 12, 03:16 AM
EDIT - Don't everybody else do what conditionals just tried to do. A few people did it last Tuesday night and we broke the internet.
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
pudrums
Apr 11, 05:20 PM
21 Gramm
http://www.cineasten.de/bilder/filme/21-gramm/l.jpg
http://www.cineasten.de/bilder/filme/21-gramm/l.jpg
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:09 PM
No. 4s is reality. 5 next June/July. Then every June/July after. :apple:
What??
What??
definitive
Apr 15, 03:51 PM
why even bother posting these fake pictures?
monochrome noise filter in photoshop, anyone?
monochrome noise filter in photoshop, anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment